VOR / ILS endorsement?

Rgbeard

Rgbeard

En-Route
Joined
Aug 26, 2017
Messages
4,366
Location
Goodyear, AZ and Ensenada, Mexico
Display Name
rgbeard
Home Airfield
KGYR / KSDM
The stuff I think of in the shower...... Are we going to see a point in time where VOR/ILS will require a separate endorsement?

Much like the tailwheel endorsement?

I.E. If you received your IR before (xx/xx/20xx) you're good-to-go, else VOR and ILS approaches will require an endorsement demonstrating proficiency.
 
Is it really that different than a GPS approach? I mean, you'll have to know how to tune a VHF for comms, so that shouldn't be an issue.
 
Last edited:
Rgbeard said:
The stuff I think of in the shower...... Are we going to see a point in time where VOR/ILS will require a separate endorsement?

Much like the tailwheel endorsement?

I.E. If you received your IR before (xx/xx/20xx) you're good-to-go, else VOR and ILS approaches will require an endorsement demonstrating proficiency.
Click to expand...
As one of the unfortunate souls who doesn't have an IFR GPS in their plane, I sincerely hope ILS/VOR/LOC/etc don't decline in popularity any more than they already have :(
 
ArrowFlyer86 said:
As one of the unfortunate souls who doesn't have an IFR GPS in their plane, I sincerely hope ILS/VOR/LOC/etc don't decline in popularity any more than they already have :(
Click to expand...
And renters like me can't always get the equipment we want when we want it.
 
If they haven't done it for ADF, they won't for VHF.

No " four course range" endorsement either.

Or "big concrete arrow" endorsement.
 
ArrowFlyer86 said:
As one of the unfortunate souls who doesn't have an IFR GPS in their plane, I sincerely hope ILS/VOR/LOC/etc don't decline in popularity any more than they already have :(
Click to expand...
I feel the only one of those three that's in danger is the VOR. I think you're safe with the other two, but nowadays, being unable to fly an RNAV is greatly limiting, especially for most of the smaller community GA airports.
 
Salty said:
Is it really that different than a GPS approach? I mean, you'll have to know how to tune a VHF for comms, so that shouldn't be an issue.
Click to expand...

There are quite a few differences between VOR/ILS navigation and RNAV navigation. VOR has radials, frequencies, OBS settings, ident, cross radials to determine fixes, regulatory IFR equipment check, service volumes. ILS has front course/back course, frequencies, ident. If you are flying with a GPS/VOR/ILS navigator, then you also have to worry about VLOC/GPS CDI selection. But the database is free for VOR/ILS navigation.
 
John Collins said:
There are quite a few differences between VOR/ILS navigation and RNAV navigation. VOR has radials, frequencies, OBS settings, ident, cross radials to determine fixes, regulatory IFR equipment check, service volumes. ILS has front course/back course, frequencies, ident. If you are flying with a GPS/VOR/ILS navigator, then you also have to worry about VLOC/GPS CDI selection. But the database is free for VOR/ILS navigation.
Click to expand...
True, but practically speaking the vast majority of that is not that prevalent these days. I'd say, you could fly quite a lot of IFR today and never experience most of that. Some of them you'd have to really look around to even find an example (cross radial fixes / back course ILS)
 
Salty said:
True, but practically speaking the vast majority of that is not that prevalent these days.
Click to expand...

That is all you have if you don't have a GPS. All conventional approaches and Victor/Jet Airways are defined in these terms.
 
Salty said:
Is it really that different than a GPS approach? I mean, you'll have to know how to tune a VHF for comms, so that shouldn't be an issue.
Click to expand...

Many radios tune the VHF nav for you. :D
 
I agree that good VOR navigation requires familiarity that someone who trains learning only GPS might not have. That being said, I think requiring a newer IFR pilot an endorsement to use VOR/ILS is exactly as likely as requiring an older IFR pilot an endorsement to use GPS.

At some point, you have to trust people to learn to use the equipment they have. Half of being a pilot is understanding the rough contours of what you don't know, so that you can recognize and make the effort to learn those things when you get that equipment, or move to that geographic area, or whatever.
 
It still goes back to the fact that the ACS is a testing document, not a training document. Training isn’t (and shouldn’t be) limited by the ACS requirements.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WDD
The only thing I could see being added some day is an internal combustion endorsement IF electric trainers ever become common. Even then probably only if it becomes a problem. I've always been a little surprised that there's no turboprop endorsement, but I'd guess the insurance training requirements far outweigh anything the faa would mandate.
 
MauleSkinner said:
It still goes back to the fact that the ACS is a testing document, not a training document. Training isn’t (and shouldn’t be) limited by the ACS requirements.
Click to expand...
I'd say that it's a testing AND training document. It does specify the bare minimum of training in each area that a student should receive. I'm not a fan of "bare minimum" anything, but they had to start somewhere.
 
write-stuff said:
I'd say that it's a testing AND training document. It does specify the bare minimum of training in each area that a student should receive. I'm not a fan of "bare minimum" anything, but they had to start somewhere.
Click to expand...
In theory I agree, but See numerous threads with posts to the effect of, “if your instructor tells you to do something that’s not in the ACS, tell him to pound sand.”
 
write-stuff said:
I'd say that it's a testing AND training document. It does specify the bare minimum of training in each area that a student should receive. I'm not a fan of "bare minimum" anything, but they had to start somewhere.
Click to expand...
Interestingly, here’s what the Aviation Instructor’s Handbook says about the ACS…
Flight instructors should produce safe pilots. For that reason, instructors should encourage each learner to learn as much as possible. When introducing lesson tasks, flight instructors should not focus on the minimum acceptable standards for passing the checkride. The ACS/PTS is not a teaching tool. It is a testing tool. The overall focus of flight training should be on education, learning, and understanding why the standards are there and how they were set. The completion standards for each lesson should gradually reach or exceed those in the ACS/PTS before final preparation for the checkride.
Click to expand...

No, I didn’t go hunting for that…I stumbled across it looking for something else.

I’m also not saying it disagrees with your post…just adding context.
 
There's that word: "How much learning would a learner learn, if a learner would learn learning?"
 
Clip4 said:
And if your student tells you to pound sand, tell your ex-student good luck with his next CFI.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of CFI that teach the bare minimum. They teach only to get a checkride pass on their scorecard. That’s why I like DPEs that switch up their rides instead of doing a routine cookie cutter checkride.
 
No to the OP's shower question.

VOR navigation should remain as part of the standard IR requirements as an emergency back up to the GPS system. But teaching and DPE testing it will get harder and harder as the VOR number shrinks to the ultimate MON level.

A mentioned above, I have no idea how one can practically fly IFR without GPS today.
 
WDD said:
VOR navigation should remain as part of the standard IR requirements as an emergency back up to the GPS system. But teaching and DPE testing it will get harder and harder as the VOR number shrinks to the ultimate MON level.

A mentioned above, I have no idea how one can practically fly IFR without GPS today.
Click to expand...

There is a draft of an update to ACS for the instrument rating and the guidance for IPC. It appears it will allow doing all the tasks using an aircraft that only has GPS. This statement has been removed from the Non Precision Task:

The evaluator will select nonprecision approaches representative of the type that the applicant is likely to use. The choices must use at least two different types of navigational aids.

Examples of acceptable nonprecision approaches include: VOR, VOR/DME, LOC procedures on an ILS, LDA, RNAV (RNP) or RNAV (GPS) to LNAV, LNAV/VNAV or LPV line of minima as long as the LPV DA is greater than 300 feet HAT. The equipment must be installed and the database must be current and qualified to fly GPS-based approaches.
Click to expand...

The section now reads as:

Task A. Non-precision Approach

A non-precision approach is a standard instrument approach procedure to a published minimum descent altitude without approved vertical guidance. The applicant may use navigation systems that display advisory vertical guidance during nonprecision
approach operations, if available.

The evaluator must select and the applicant must accomplish at least two different non-precision approaches in simulated or actual instrument meteorological conditions:

• At least one procedure must include a course reversal maneuver (e.g., procedure turn, holding in lieu, or the course reversal from an initial approach fix on a Terminal Area Arrival).
• The applicant must accomplish at least one procedure from an initial approach fix without the use of autopilot and without the assistance of radar vectors. During this Task, flying without using the autopilot does not prevent use of the yaw damper and flight director.
• The applicant must fly one procedure with reference to backup or partial panel instrumentation or navigation display, depending on the aircraft’s instrument avionics configuration, representing a realistic failure mode(s) for the equipment used.

The evaluator has discretion to have the applicant perform a landing or a missed approach at the completion of each
approach.
Click to expand...
 
WDD said:
No to the OP's shower question.

VOR navigation should remain as part of the standard IR requirements as an emergency back up to the GPS system. But teaching and DPE testing it will get harder and harder as the VOR number shrinks to the ultimate MON level.

A mentioned above, I have no idea how one can practically fly IFR without GPS today.
Click to expand...

Agreed but remember the time you really couldn't fly IFR across the country without an NBD! :confused:
 
Pugs said:
Agreed but remember the time you really couldn't fly IFR across the country without an NBD! :confused:
Click to expand...

I think you mean ADF. That is the part in the airplane. NDB is the station on the ground.

But before that, you had manual direction finders and 4 course radio ranges, which did not give you any direct direction info.
 
Jim K said:
The only thing I could see being added some day is an internal combustion endorsement IF electric trainers ever become common. Even then probably only if it becomes a problem. I've always been a little surprised that there's no turboprop endorsement, but I'd guess the insurance training requirements far outweigh anything the faa would mandate.
Click to expand...
I’m surprised about the lack of turbo prop endorsement. Get your PPL and legally jump into the left seat of your PC-12!! :eek:
 
In the real world, insurance companies have way more say over what you 'jump into' than the FAA.

C.
 
camorton said:
In the real world, insurance companies have way more say over what you 'jump into' than the FAA.

C.
Click to expand...
I would say that it's about equal, because FAA requirements and insurance requirements each fall into the category of "necessary but not sufficient."
 
Pinecone said:
I think you mean ADF. That is the part in the airplane. NDB is the station on the ground.

But before that, you had manual direction finders and 4 course radio ranges, which did not give you any direct direction info.
Click to expand...

I knew that - brain asleep!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top